4.+Analysis


 * Analysis**


 * All went up except for suggesting and persuading and including others, could be because D1 was longer, also more comforatble with each other so were moreforthcoming with opinions (eg- respectful disagreeing increased)**

Active listening is displayed when the listener responds to the speaker in some way that assures them that they are being listened to (McGrath, 20??). This can be demonstrated by simply saying something to acknowledge the speakers words, repeating or paraphrasing the discussion, or by asking a question of the speaker to prove that they are being heard. This was the most commonly used social skill throughout both group discussions, with discussion one showing 76 instances of this skill and discussion two showing 82. Despite its dominance however, it was perhaps the most difficult to capture in the transcripts. Simple words and noises, such as ‘yeah’ and ‘mmm…’ were repeatedly used by all members of the group to acknowledge each others views and opinions, but because some were so minor and indistinguishable, they were often overlooked in the transcription process and could only be captured audibly. More discernible displays of active listening (such as repetition and asking questions) were exercised throughout the second discussion as group members became more conscious of this skill. This was perhaps the most exercised skill as it is employed in everyday conversations, not only in decision-making discussions. This meant that group members were able to use this skill more naturally, allowing group members to feel comfortable and safe in the opinions they expressed.
 * Active Listening:**

Can be described by stating points of agreement, however small, before points of disagreement. For example, in discussion one, Posh said that she Liked the list we had compiled, but still wasnt sure about our placement of Tim. The use of respecful disgareeing increased between discussion one and two, from five to seven. This could be contributed to the fact that we were more aware of how we phrased our disagreements so they did not sound like our opinions negated our progress so far.
 * Respectful Disagreeing: def, data, comparsion, suggest why**

An "I message" is a statement that tells the listener what you see, think, feel, or want, in an objective manner that does not assign blame or put the listener down (Denton and Kriete, 2009). This can be done, for example, by explaining any relevant personal experiences. I-messages can be presented to result in two possible outcomes: polarisation and non-polarisation. If the information is used in accordance with group consensus, it is said to be non-polarising. It acts as further evidence to strengthen the group’s opinion and consolidates the speaker as a supporter of this opinion. This occurred in discussion two as Sporty told the group that her personal experience with living in a bush fire prone area has taught her the importance of personal documents. Her I-message was consistent with the group’s view that it would be important to save the personal documents. Alternatively, polarisation of the group’s consensus can occur when I-messages are used to give new understanding of the situation. In the first discussion, many of the groups I-messages were polarising, perhaps due to the fact that group members interpreted the story differently and therefore did not have a consistent opinion of the argument. As the group engaged in the second discussion, polarising I-messages were still used, however, non-polarising I-messages increased from 9 to17. This may have been due to the fact that we were less confused about the situation and surer of our individual values placed on the different objects. Similar values helped the group reach consensus and this was reflective in the increased use of non-polarising I-messages. Consequently, the group was able to communicate more effectively and feel more confident harmonious in our end decisions McGrath (unknown year) describes positive tracking as commenting on what is going well and on good ideas and highlighting where agreement has been reached. Therefore, it can be summarised as focusing on the strengths, progress and positive aspects of the situation. In discussion one, positive tracking occurred twice. It's frequency increased in discussion two, occurring five times. A likely reason for this rise in frequency could be a simple as by the second discussion we had covered and been taught the social skill in class, therefore had obtained knowledge of how and when it should be used, as well as the positive impact it can have on the group reaching a decision. Another reason could be that all group members had gotten to know each other more by the second discussion and therefore felt more comfortable with each other. Because of this, we were able to express and share our opinions more openly and consequently the frequency increased. A third reason was that throughout the first discussion we got quite confused with the characters of the scenario and their actions. This made it difficult for us to make progress and come to conclusions on different things throughout the decision making process, meaning that there were less points for us to identify as "positive". In the second discussion however, our understanding was more clear, meaning that we were able to reach more decisions in a positive manner, therefore be able to use the skill of positive tracking more often.
 * i messages: def, data, comparision suggest why**
 * Positive Tracking: def, data, comparison, suggest why**

Group Summarising (and looking for agreement on what’s left to be decided) can occur frequently when a group is discussing a problematic topic. It can be described as an individual making a comment which summarises what progress the group has made and/or what the group has agreed on so far and then identifying what’s left to be decided. (McGrath, unknown year) Therefore it is the process of making clear to other group members what has been discussed and what is left to be decided and is a very important skill to obtain throughout childhood, as it is necessary within schooling and working in fields which involve group work. It is a skill usually placed upon the leader of the group or the individual taking notes, as they are aware of what has been said by other members. Within discussion one group summarising occurred 18 times. This number increased to 21 in discussion two indicating several things as to the reasons for this rise. As a group we found the second discussion needed further summarising of which items had been chosen continuously by the note-taker of the group. Therefore it was necessary that we were told repeatedly what we had decided on and what we had left to decide on so we could continue to narrow down the options to take with us during the flood. We were a group that narrowed everything down at the start and needed to backtrack on our decisions, and so summarising needed to be done numerous times on what we had disregarded at the beginning. As a group we had gotten to know each other and it was clear from the first discussion we continually got confused with characters, what they had done and what we all thought of them. When we headed into discussion two we had this knowledge and so when we became confused instead of going along unsure of who or what we were discussing we questioned our note-taker and she summarised for us what we had decided on and what was left to be discussed.
 * Summarising: def, data, comparison, suggest why**

Helen McGrath (unknown year) describes the social skill of suggesting and persuading as the ability to invite others to consider your suggested idea, and to then provide persuasive reasons that support this idea. This is seen as a learning-related social skill that should be used throughout collaborative learning as opposed to bulldozing and bossing. Suggesting and persuading appeared 27 times throughout the process of discussion one, whilst it appeared 25 times throughout discussion two. The difference between these two amounts of occurrence in each discussion appears to be too negligible to consider, or draw any definite conclusions from. This could be because the skill of suggesting as persuading in itself is a very natural skill that a group of people would demonstrate when completing this task in a group. As a solution must be reached by numerous people who will most likely have differing opinions, so suggestions must be made and people need to persuade the others of their suggestions. The appropriate and effective use of suggesting and persuading could, more than likely, come fairly easy to a university student (which of course we all were) as they have already had much experience undertaking problems and assignments in the group format and hence would have already used and developed these skills in order to reap the benefits. Because of how natural it would have been for us to use suggesting and persuading, not much should have changed between the two conversations, which it did not. A possible reason for the slightly higher number of instances in discussion one (a difference of two instances), could be the fact that discussion one was a little bit longer in time than discussion two, hence had more opportunities for the instances of suggesting and persuading to be demonstrated.
 * Suggesting and Persuading: def, data, comparison, suggest why**

McGrath defines including others as “trying to draw other group members into a discussion, negotiation or activity.” (Unknown year) This is a key social skill to have within the schoolyard and workforce, it allows for positive relationships to develop with a simple initiation into discussions. It allows a further circulation of opinions by those not confident enough to speak without invitation and makes sure that one topic is able to be discussed as a whole group and not dominated by one single party or viewpoint. It can go hand in hand with the other social skills as it is necessary to include others to share the work load, negotiate and suggest and persuade opinions as there needs to be complete group involvement to be able to conduct discussions using these skills. The first discussion was longer than the second, we therefore found it to be more difficult to come to a conclusion than in the second, and needed the opinions of each group member to decide who to list as most moral characters to the least moral. Therefore it was necessary for us to question each other on our opinions more often than in the second discussion. In discussion one incidents of including others occurred 9 times whereas in discussion 2 they only occurred 8 times. The reason for this may be placed down to the fact we had all gotten to know each other since the first discussion. We attended classes together where we sat together, and had discussed the workload on the wiki page that had been set up for the purpose of the assignment. We were therefore comfortable enough with each other to state our opinions without needing to be asked by other group members
 * Including Others: def, data, comparison, suggest why**

Negotiation involves everyone having some input into a decision and gets something that they wanted, not all of what they wanted, in the final decision. It must also be ensured that all parties can live with the decision, even if it is not completely what they wanted. (McGrath, unknown year) Negotiation featured five times in discussion one, whilst it featured eight times in discussion two. Since the numbers being dealt with a small, a difference of three is notable enough to question why this may be the case. Negotiation was often quite difficult to find as most people in the group generally agreed with one another, even if they changed their minds later. However, there was a little bit more disagreeing occurring in the second discussion (as can be seen by the frequency of respectful disagreeing) which could be due to the fact that by discussion two, the group had already worked together for some time and hence felt more comfortable in disagreeing if they felt it necessary. This disagreeing meant that in order for one solution to be reached that each member of the group was somewhat satisfied with, negotiation needed to occur. Therefore more disagreeing leads to more negotiation necessary.
 * Negotiation: def, data, comparison, suggest why**